See, this is why I hate the ACA because even at this late date no one can agree on how much it costs. It's a boondoogle. I won't defend it. My only goal is to figure out how to take advantage it while its here.

Mitt Romneys Tax Return:For thiose of you wondering about costs at various income levels for the mandated coverage, here is a worksheet from my (happily) progressive state. I would assume costs would be similar in forward-thinking stares that are actually going to implement the ACA on time.

By this calculator, my costs will be going down more than 50%, from approx. 20% of my gross income to about 9%. I'm ecstatic.

Arachnophobe:Kittypie070: Does it MATTER if they tried to vote the ACA down 37 times in a ROW??

Suddenly they want it enforced instead of trying again and again to kill it WHY?

Suddenly they declare it UNconstitutional to NOT enforce ACA, when they were screaming about it being unconstitutional in the first place??

Does anyone even remember those town hall meetings?

It's not difficult, really. When the President does something, it's automatically the worst thing ever. Implement the ACA? HORRIBLE! Delay a portion of the very thing they were yelling about being horrible? EVEN WORSE. No matter what the president does, the Republicans will oppose it as loudly as they can. I'm frankly shocked they haven't been yelling about his bathroom habits.

Kittypie070:Does it MATTER if they tried to vote the ACA down 37 times in a ROW??

Suddenly they want it enforced instead of trying again and again to kill it WHY?

Suddenly they declare it UNconstitutional to NOT enforce ACA, when they were screaming about it being unconstitutional in the first place??

Does anyone even remember those town hall meetings?

GOP don't remember the past (except Jesus and Raygun, but then, their distorted versions of Jesus and Raygun . . . I don't think they remember Reagan at all.) They only remember the present and they only know what they believe benefits them.

Mike_LowELL:Republicans: Control the House.Democrats: Too poor to own a house.

Do you see why an intelligent, successful, and attractive businessman such as myself cannot take you liberals seriously? When you make a billion dollars in a year trading the same credit default swap 300,000 times per day, get back to me. Until then, you're poor. LOL.

IrateShadow:worlddan: Because the number of people it effects is tiny. Most people who do not have employer-provided insurance will actually get subsidized by the government in one form or another. Very very few people will get stuck with a penalty.

50 million people is nothing to sneeze at and even with the subsidy, you're still looking at those people spending out 9% of their income on health insurance. That's really farking stifling to someone making $25k/year.

Well, maybe that'll be an incentive to get a better paying job! farking lazy asses.

Franco:Protip subsidies never work. Only make it more expensive for the consumer. Always.

That may be true - may be true - if you're counting the total cost to all consumers, including that portion of taxes paid which goes to the subsidy. Nevertheless, it's nonsense. Ask anyone who can thank the rural electrification program for their electrical power. Was it more expensive overall than a purely market-based approach? Maybe - I doubt it, but maybe. If so, though, much of that cost was spread out over the total population of taxpayers, most of who noticed no significant effect. Meanwhile, the people directly assisted by the program came out well ahead.

MyRandomName:They are intrinsically tied together. In order to qualify for subsidies, you have to prove that the business you work for is not providing health care if they are an employer size 50 or larger.

Not for calendar year 2014, no. Because they won't be requiring business to provide the data, for 2014 all you need to do is check a checkbox saying your employer doesn't offer health insurance. Starting in 2015 that will be electronically verified by the insurers.

namatad:StoPPeRmobile: I can't see how this can do anything but drive up insurance costs, across the board. Makes me think of minimum wage increases.

I guess it's going to suck to be in your thirties.

You ask the right question, but not quite with the right words.

The working theory has always been that uninsured people drive up the COSTS to everyone.They go to the ER and cant pay. They have a heart attack and spend two weeks in the hospital and cant pay.That COST gets rolled into everyone else's bills as higher prices. Directly or indirectly.

In theory, the number of people having heart attacks stays the same, except that now everyone has insurance. So on average, the cost per heart attack should go down. Right?

Unless the hospitals keep the prices the same and pocket the profit.

And what has been the cost/availability/ER visit experience in Massachusetts? That's the closest analog to Obamacare that we have, and presumably would be a good test of those assumptions.

I dunno how to look at this. For me, my current individual non-smoker under 50 years old rate is a bit over 400 bucks a month. Under the new rates for Hawaii for my same plan, its dropping about a 100 bucks.

If for some reason I had to get insurance on my own, take that 300ish rate and halve it. 160ish assuming I go (high rate) if I went basic, thats another 50 bucks off.

Due to employer matching, I'm currently benefiting from a 50/50 split, so my out of paycheck per month is a little over 200 bucks. My Obamacare stuff looks like it'd be around 50 bucks a month cheaper.

Arachnophobe:Kittypie070: Does it MATTER if they tried to vote the ACA down 37 times in a ROW??

Suddenly they want it enforced instead of trying again and again to kill it WHY?

Suddenly they declare it UNconstitutional to NOT enforce ACA, when they were screaming about it being unconstitutional in the first place??

Does anyone even remember those town hall meetings?

It's not difficult, really. When the President does something, it's automatically the worst thing ever. Implement the ACA? HORRIBLE! Delay a portion of the very thing they were yelling about being horrible? EVEN WORSE. No matter what the president does, the Republicans will oppose it as loudly as they can. I'm frankly shocked they haven't been yelling about his bathroom habits.

Mike Chewbacca:Arachnophobe: Kittypie070: Does it MATTER if they tried to vote the ACA down 37 times in a ROW??

Suddenly they want it enforced instead of trying again and again to kill it WHY?

Suddenly they declare it UNconstitutional to NOT enforce ACA, when they were screaming about it being unconstitutional in the first place??

Does anyone even remember those town hall meetings?

It's not difficult, really. When the President does something, it's automatically the worst thing ever. Implement the ACA? HORRIBLE! Delay a portion of the very thing they were yelling about being horrible? EVEN WORSE. No matter what the president does, the Republicans will oppose it as loudly as they can. I'm frankly shocked they haven't been yelling about his bathroom habits.

So farking true.

[i.imgur.com image 300x300]

First of all who the fark is Dave Reichard? Is that a cab driver you met in a public restroom?Second the whole point of the argument is whether or not the POTUS has power to delay the law he wanted purely on his own volition. Does the ObamaCare law require the employer mandate to be implemented in a fixed time frame?

I don't know about part 2. On one hand I can't imagine how the POTUS can change the the law because he wants to. On the other I don't know if I completely understand ObamaCare enough to know the answer. For instance if the bill grants authority to the president to do as he pleases then he can do as he pleases. The problem is that the law we needed pass to understand is really complicated and no one really understands what it means.

Ask yourself this though: if Obama has the power to delay ObamaCare in part then can the next president abolish it all together? The only way to reconcile what the law means is to use the judicial branch.

There's a soundclip from Conker's Bad Fur Day after you incorrectly enter a cheat more than once that goes, "didn't work first time, ain't gonna work the second time dipshiat". I need to clip that off for future use every time the Repugs try to repeal Obamacare.

Aarontology:Obama is delaying the requirement on businesses to provide coverage for their employees, not the individual mandate.

Delaying one without the other is retarded, sir especially given the reason to delay the business requirement is that they're having difficulty getting in line with the policy, while still requiring people to purchase insurance even though the GOP and the dems are doing all they can to delay the exchanges and many of the other provisions until after the midterm.

bestie1:Mike Chewbacca: Arachnophobe: Kittypie070: Does it MATTER if they tried to vote the ACA down 37 times in a ROW??

Suddenly they want it enforced instead of trying again and again to kill it WHY?

Suddenly they declare it UNconstitutional to NOT enforce ACA, when they were screaming about it being unconstitutional in the first place??

Does anyone even remember those town hall meetings?

It's not difficult, really. When the President does something, it's automatically the worst thing ever. Implement the ACA? HORRIBLE! Delay a portion of the very thing they were yelling about being horrible? EVEN WORSE. No matter what the president does, the Republicans will oppose it as loudly as they can. I'm frankly shocked they haven't been yelling about his bathroom habits.

So farking true.

[i.imgur.com image 300x300]

First of all who the fark is Dave Reichard? Is that a cab driver you met in a public restroom?Second the whole point of the argument is whether or not the POTUS has power to delay the law he wanted purely on his own volition. Does the ObamaCare law require the employer mandate to be implemented in a fixed time frame?

I don't know about part 2. On one hand I can't imagine how the POTUS can change the the law because he wants to. On the other I don't know if I completely understand ObamaCare enough to know the answer. For instance if the bill grants authority to the president to do as he pleases then he can do as he pleases. The problem is that the law we needed pass to understand is really complicated and no one really understands what it means.

Ask yourself this though: if Obama has the power to delay ObamaCare in part then can the next president abolish it all together? The only way to reconcile what the law means is to use the judicial branch.

You're the only one in our country wouldn't know how to interpret "Dave Reichert (H-R)."